INTERPOL's comments to the GNSO's Recommendations re. protection of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs [For official use]

Subject: INTERPOL's comments to the GNSO's Recommendations re. protection of IGO and INGO identifiers in all gTLDs [For official use]

From: WEB LA <WEBLC@xxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2013 16:56:29 +0100

Confidentiality Level : INTERPOL For official use only
Dear Ms. Wong,
We wish to bring to your attention a matter of particular concern for INTERPOL.
The recent IGO-INGO Identifier Protection recommendations adopted by the GNSO
Council, which consists on the one hand in accepting protections for full names
at both the top and second levels but on the other hand in refusing such
protections for IGO acronyms, are likely to affect negatively and in a
significant manner this Organisation. INTERPOL hereby wishes to add its voice
to many organization that have expressed great concern on this issue.
To our view, the GNSO recommendations fail completely to take into account
public policy concerns, the unique status and needs of IGOs and longstanding
and repeated GAC advice.
There is indeed no valid reason for making a distinction between full names and
acronyms.
- In fact, it is well known by all that a vast majority of IGOs are far
better known by their acronyms than their full names as is clearly the case for
INTERPOL. In the context of the DNS, it defies basic logic to refuse
protection for the commonly known acronyms and instead protect the often
lengthy full names, which is meaningless for most of us (including "ICANN"
itself) and would thus amount to giving IGOs no protection at all. Experience
bears this out, as IGO acronyms have often fallen victim to cybersquatting and
other forms of abuse in the DNS.
- Limitation of protection to full names would effectively defeat the
very purpose of the envisaged protection and would carry a real cost for vital
public missions, especially when campaigns for education and funding are today
heavily reliant on the Internet.
- As ICANN's mission includes, inter alia, protecting consumers from
abuse in connection with the new gTLD program, it is surprising that such
considerations in no way motivated the GNSO decision.
In addition, we believe that IGOs considerations have been ignored throughout
this process and that there is currently certainly no consensus on the matter.
- At the second level, reasonable co-existence principles and a simple
and cost-neutral process could be devised, so a blanket refusal to protect IGO
acronyms was not warranted. If there was a will, the PDP could have explored
such mechanisms.
- IGOs have indicated on many occasions that our intention is not to
prevent in absolute terms good faith use of our acronyms in the DNS by third
parties. Rather, IGOs are looking for solutions to pre-empt third-party abuse
of our acronyms to prevent user confusion and the resulting loss of confidence
in both IGOs and the DNS.
- Instead, the entire PDP process clearly served only to confirm
conclusions which were predetermined from the start. Fact, law, public policy
considerations and even logic and reason were ignored during the process and
the so called "consensus" against IGO acronym protections was reached despite
fierce opposition from participating IGOs. It is certainly at odds with the
very concept of consensus to allow for a decision to be adopted when strong
dissent is clearly and decisively voiced by a number of stakeholders. We would
simply like to recall one of the "core values" ICANN Board of Director's Code
of Conduct: "7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms
that (i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii)
ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy development
process."
Last, the mechanisms foreseen to accommodate IGOs issues are inadequate.
- Allowing IGOs access to the Trademark Clearinghouse is woefully
insufficient, both because the time-limited (90-day) duration falls short of
any effective protection or even notification system and because of
considerations regarding using public funds for such processes, which have not
been addressed.
- As to the URS and the UDRP, the GNSO acknowledges these mechanisms to
be inadequate for IGOs due notably to immunities, but also because of standing
and cost considerations. Whether initiating a new PDP would develop mechanisms
adequate for IGOs is quite uncertain, but what is certain is that such a
lengthy undertaking would not provide a timely solution. We should also point
out that the URS and the UDRP would remain curative mechanisms which would thus
not prevent the harm from occurring. In a situation of crisis, where cases of
abuse are generally on the rise, IGOs cannot wait for the results of a dispute
resolution process before stopping fraud involving its identifier.
It is important to recall that ICANN's founding documents require ICANN to
carry out its activities in conformity with relevant principles of
international law and applicable international conventions, to cooperate with
relevant IGOs and to duly take into account governments' and public
authorities' recommendations, recognising that public authorities are
responsible for public policy.
The GAC repeatedly advised that IGOs, as entities created by governments under
public international law, are in an objectively different category to other
rights holders and that there is a prevailing global public interest to provide
special preventative protections for IGO names and acronyms at both the top and
second levels.
Should ICANN endorse these recommendations, it would be highly criticized for
making decisions affecting global public policy matters based purely on
commercial considerations or rather unreasonable fears that such commercial
interests would be adversely affected.
We sincerely hope that the ICANN Board will not follow the route proposed by
the GNSO Council .
Kind regards,
General Secretariat
International Criminal Police Organization - INTERPOL
***************************************************************************************************
This message, and any attachment contained, are confidential and subject of
legal privilege. It may be used solely for the designated police/justice
purpose and by the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. The
information is not to be disseminated to another agency or third party without
the author’s consent, and must not be retained longer than is necessary for the
fulfilment of the purpose for which the information is to be used. All
practicable steps shall be taken by the recipients to ensure that information
is protected against unauthorised access or processing. INTERPOL reserves the
right to enquire about the use of the information provided.
If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this
message in error. In such a case, you should not print it, copy it, make any
use of it or disclose it, but please notify us immediately and delete the
message from any computer.
*************************************************************************************************